We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

NAD Consumer Protection in Retail: Weekly Roundup

The National Advertising Division (“NAD”) was busy this past week. The organization recommended that several companies modify or discontinue claims made for the following consumer products:

Disinfecting Wipes

After a challenge by The Clorox Company, NAD recommended that Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., discontinue certain claims made in both print and television ads for Lysol Disinfecting Wipes and Spray products. The claims included statements declaring that Lysol “helps fight the flu before it starts” and kills “45% more types of germs” as compared to other wipes. NAD concluded that these claims were not supported by evidence in the record, and Reckitt Benckiser announced that it plans to appeal NAD’s findings to the National Advertising Review Board. Clorox has been active recently in challenging competitors’ claims–just a few weeks ago, in a challenge brought by Clorox, the NAD recommended that the maker of OxiClean White Revive non-chlorine bleach modify its television ad campaigns.

Hearing Protection Fit-Testing Systems

NAD also examined claims for hearing protection fit-testing products this week, and recommended that the 3M Company modify or discontinue claims about the superiority of its E-A-Rfit and E-A-Rfit Dual Ear Validation Systems. These systems allow professionals and employers to assess whether the hearing protection devices used on the job provide a safe level of hearing protection. 3M and Honeywell compete in this market, and NAD recommended that 3M modify or discontinue its print advertisements that compare 3M’s system to Honeywell’s Howard Leight VeriPRO system. 3M responded to NAD’s decision by saying it respectfully disagrees, but will follow NAD’s recommendation and does not plan to appeal.

Vacuums

In response to a competitor challenge by Dyson, Inc., NAD recommended that SharkNinja Operating LLC discontinue certain advertising claims that compared the company’s Shark Rocket DeluxePro Vacuum to upright vacuums and in particular, to the Dyson V6 vacuum. NAD determined that the comparison between the vacuums was not supported by evidence in the record. In addition, NAD questioned the use of consumer endorsements, and recommended that SharkNinja disclose the connection between consumers featured in their infomercial and the company. SharkNinja announced that it plans to comply with NAD’s recommendations.

Compare jurisdictions: Employment & Labor: North America

"Lexology is a very relevant and interesting resource for South African in-house lawyers. The newsfeeds are a good measure of a firm's expertise and offer an interesting insight into recent legal developments. I would highly recommend Lexology to colleagues."